Mike, when I did my 1990 5.0, with 2.25" exhaust, headers and 600 cfm
double pumper Holley, I called Edelbrock and asked what manifold would
work with my Tiger, and that I did not want to rev over 6K. I also told
them I had a F4B manifold.
To my surprise, the Edelbrock tech guy said the F4B is still a very good
manifold, as was as good as what was available then, 1998, even though
he could have steered me to another manifold, and made the sale.
BTW, while it's nice to cut weight off of the car, the front of a Tiger
is not front heavy.
I measured the weight at each 4 wheels, with and without me and Joe
Parlanti in the car.
The Tiger happens to be very balanced.
Larry
MWood24020@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 8/6/2008 4:44:56 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>mrlau@charter.net writes:
>
>I'll bet this could be argued every way that is possible. I don't think
>there is very much difference and I'm pretty sure it would depend on what
>other engine modifications were involved anyway.
>
>
>I'm not sure that a F4B can support much more than a stock head, low cfm
>4bbl combo, but it is period and Tiger correct, of course, and should
>outperform
>the FoMoCo cast iron equivalent from that era :-)
>
>I would love to see a dyno plot of the Performer vs. F4B on that same motor,
>though...my guess is that the "old school" manifold would get smoked, to say
>nothing of the option of moving to the Performer RPM.
>
>
>
>**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
>Read reviews on AOL Autos.
>(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017
> )
>_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Tigers@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers
http://www.team.net/archive
|